English 10 –Mrs. Burgess
11/26/07
On the Waterfront as Literature Review
On the Waterfront is an outstanding film. It is like a well-written book that has a decently organized plot that is even exciting and beautiful. This is a black-and-white film, which I expected a cold, solid atmosphere, but unlike my expectations the screen was filled with warmth and smoothness. Usage of adequate amount of light has nicely soothed the general spectacle. Despite its colorless, the audience was astonished with its “colorful” performance by actors’ and actress’ wonderful accomplishments. In general, the story, which was based on a true event, flew thoroughly with awesome music and costumes that caught attentions of many people.
In the film On the Waterfront, each of the characters carries a burden that obstructs his or her own goals and dreams. For example, Terry Malloy, who is a strong fighter but has an unfortunate pathway of life, constantly struggles with himself after he falls in love with a girl named Edie Doyle because he first has to face the truth that he was once one of the villains who killed her brother, Joy Doyle. During the process of achieving “salvation” by confessing the sin he committed, he loses his friends and his brother by the villains, but throughout many fights and sadness he wins the evil. On the other hand, Edie Doyle tries to figure out where she should stand between the death of her brother and her love, Terry, who is responsible for the death of her brother. Her dilemma is virtually forgiving herself who loves her enemy, and her patience of love eventually saves Terry from darkness and hatred. Another example is Charley Malloy, the brother of Terry, who had done evil things for wealth so that he and his brother could happily live together. Knowing that Terry was regretful of his commitment of the murder of Joy Doyle, Charley carries all the burdens, lets his brother flee from the villains, and was killed by them for doing so. He was wishing for mere wealth and happiness, but he also understood that Terry, who was overwhelmed by what they have done, was right about their mistakes. Although these characters were standing at the opposite ends to each other, they sacrificed themselves and gathered themselves together at one point, for the salvation of themselves and for the victory against the evil.
Another thing about this film is that it reflects the setting very well. Throughout the characters’ clothes, accents, slangs, items, and word usages, not only they make it possible for the audience to estimate the time period which the film was made; 1954, but they also reveal the styles and traditions of the place and the people for the background information for the audience.
There are number of conflicts in the film which divides into external and internal. For instance, Terry vs. himself, Terry vs. his brother, mob vs. Johnny Friendly, Edie vs. herself, etc. All these conflicts derive from one major issue, the greed and selfishness of men. Thematically, this tells that “greed lays greed.” Johnny Friendly chose to murder people to fulfill his greed toward money and as soon as he commits one murder he continues to commit another to keep himself in his present position. The murders continued until Terry won the “war” against Johnny Friendly.
Personally, the supporting actors were awesomely well performing! (Of course there is no need of talking about Marlon Brando! He was Terry himself!) Karl Malden, who acted out the priest Father Barry, showed a powerful charisma when he shouted at the workers that no one should keep their mouths shut if they know the truth. The audience, like the workers, chilled when they heard his words. His firm voice, strong hand movements, facial expressions were all parts of building his character. Father Barry’s words made everyone to reflect themselves, even the audience. Next, Charley Malloy, acted by Rod Steiger, also played a great supporting role. When he was asked by his boss, Johnny Friendly, to kill his own brother, he made this unforgettable facial expression that touched the audiences’ heartstrings. He was crying with his heart when he said, “I can’t. He’s my brother.” His sadness gradually passed through the screen to the audience. Last actor that played significant role in the film was the boy, Terry’s friend, who killed all the pigeons, which were Terry’s birds. Often times in literature or movies, the children leave a stronger impression than of a man; likewise in the film, the kid with crying face left the audience in a silence. Recalling of his dirty face bedraggled with tears still leaves me a special impression. These actors, all supporting the main actor and actress, contributed the maxima amount of effort they could possibly give for the role effect.
Additionally, the Costumes and make-up of the actor and actress were impressive. Scars and tears were easily seen, as they were frequently used for men’s make-up, but the real woman’s make-up was not that easy to recognize. I wasn’t sure if Edie was wearing the make-ups or not because it was only the black-and-white. For the same reason, the clothing did not fully do its job for the realization for its color, except when the dirt was used to mean that people were wearing unclean clothes.
Flat angle shot was used when Terry and Edie were sitting at a table in the salon and drank. It was clearly focused and showed every facial movement. Two of them looking directly into each others’ eyes… it created very romantic, warm mood. Later, when Terry was talking to Edie at the roof near the bird house, showing Edie the birds, the camera was shooting the medium shot. It was a comfortable view of both Terry and Edie maintaining a nice distance between them and standing in front of the beautiful combination of sky and chimney background. This also helped to show their hand movements; Terry was petting his pigeons while Edie was seizing her hands together, shyly. Near the end, the soft focus was used when Terry was walking hard toward the gate after he was beaten up by the gangs. It was expressing Terry’s view, which was blurry from the dizziness, and as if we were Terry the camera was lacking the clear focus. It was a nice effect that it adds a realization to the film.
Comparing On the Waterfront with All My Sons, there is a common dilemma about ethics that characters from the both literary works concern for the morality and money. Both characters, Joe Keller, a loving father and husband, in the play All My Sons by Arthur Miller, and Charley Malloy, a guardian of his brother Terry, in the film On the Waterfront, make unethical decisions due to their miscalculating of the terrible consequences which then turns their loving care of family into disastrous tragedy. Joe Keller saves the company by exchanging it with the death of twenty-one innocent men. Likewise Charley, with his gangs, kills witnesses by using his brother believing that by doing so they would gain wealth and happiness. Both decisions were made for the best for their family, but eventually nobody gets happy with the truth at the end. As a result, both the crime committers die, and their family members become unfortunate.
For all these reasons above, I would recommend this film to others; this movie shows many great aspects of different fields, like literary aspects, dramatic aspects, and cinematic aspects. Also, after watching, people would have more rightful ethical and virtual standards in their minds. These moral issues, because these get us, too, in dilemma often in society, have to be considered very meaningfully. Besides, it is Marlon Brando’s dramatic action movie! I was amazed at the acting, the usage of light, music, costumes and props, etc. This will become one’s favorite film of his life!
No comments:
Post a Comment